It almost seems to me that many of the educated evolutionists can't really be bothered thinking about the finer points of your theory.
There are so many complex systems, each with connecting systems that are virtually useless on their own, and yet you have very little interest to consider how or why they could come together without some kind of guidance. We have all kinds of glands designed to support other systems of the body, and they are useless on their own, and yet you are ok to just brush away this logical difficulties of bridging all of these gaps. Things like saliva glands, or testes. Which came first, an erection or an orgasm?
Well, why bother to wonder, if you can just say natural selection can do it all, the details are much easier to ignore.
Hey, I want to ask you, how come you believe in a soul while at the same time you believe in an unguided process of life.? Do you think God decided to inject a soul AFTER he saw that his unguided, completely random system luckily resulted in something that resembled him?
And do you believe in this with absolutely no evidence to come to that conclusion?
Or can you just not really be bothered to think about it?
Hey, I want to ask you, how come you believe in a soul while at the same time you believe in an unguided process of life.?
The existence of a soul is a belief, nothing more. It may or may not exist. It may well be nothing more than a human construct. There is no evidence so far that there is a soul.
There is evidence though that Evolution happened.
When you present evidence that there really is a soul, then we can begin looking for how it evolved.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Let me explain something to you that might help clear things up a bit for you, because you seem confused to me.
First, I am asking Catholic Scientists why HE holds this belief. You see, you are by definition not capable of answering why HE believes this unless you are in fact him. I think this is known as the "individualist school of thought ownership"-or in some circles also known as the "who the fuck was asking you what he thinks" brand of intellectualism. Its a post-modernist thought I concede.
Secondly, there may be evidence of common ancestry, but there is virtually no evidence of the mechanism for that.
As far as the soul, I believe I have subjective evidence suggesting that it exists, but I'm not sure that's rightly calling it "evidence", so it depends.
Or can you just not really be bothered to think about it?
Far from it! I've got over 4600 posts here over the last 5.5 years. Its safe to say I've bothered to think about this stuff.
Let me explain something to you that might help clear things up a bit for you, because you seem confused to me.
First, I am asking Catholic Scientists why HE holds this belief. You see, you are by definition not capable of answering why HE believes this unless you are in fact him. I think this is known as the "individualist school of thought ownership"-or in some circles also known as the "who the fuck was asking you what he thinks" brand of intellectualism. Its a post-modernist thought I concede.
Does anything in that rant refute any of the things I said or are you simply unable to address the points I raised?
Bolder-dash writes:
Secondly, there may be evidence of common ancestry, but there is virtually no evidence of the mechanism for that.
In addition to that being irrelevant to the issue I addressed, it is also simply wrong.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I think this sort of depends on what you mean by evolution-evolution as a general concept, or evolution as a Darwinian/natural selection kind of thing (for that there really isn't any evidence at all as it turns out-just lots of conjecture).
I don't doubt at all your subjective evidence for a soul. I think that is what one would expect one's experience of a soul to be. Most people already have accepted that they are not going to be sent a hand delivered letter of authenticity from above.
I just have a hard time philosophically coupling a notion of unguided, unintelligent evolutionary drive with the concepts of a unique relationship between a spirit and a human. But as you have stated, you don't necessarily believe in a classical Darwinian evolutionary theory, so I can understand more easily how you can reach your beliefs.
You're probably too young to remember Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972. I recall an editorial comment from the time to the effect that America had chosen a smart crook (Nixon) over an honest fool (McGovern).
To this day, when somebody claims to be an honest fool instead of a smart crook, I usually take his word for it.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
I think this sort of depends on what you mean by evolution-evolution as a general concept, or evolution as a Darwinian/natural selection kind of thing (for that there really isn't any evidence at all as it turns out-just lots of conjecture).
Well, evolution (small "e") is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for that observation that I have seen. Really, its the only explanation I have.
(for that there really isn't any evidence at all as it turns out-just lots of conjecture).
That's just plain old wrong.
But as you have stated, you don't necessarily believe in a classical Darwinian evolutionary theory
No, I do accept it. There's plenty of evidence to suggest it, and not one single piece of evidence to refute it.
™ Version 4.2
